They proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion,
and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves,
that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as
. . . They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists
but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the
concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of
identity no such concept as “change” is possible.
. . . “You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,”
they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence,
consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to
know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned
to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.